Walgreens cited shoplifting as rationale for closing 5 stores in San Francisco, but..

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by mhays

Where did they say it's the only reason?

In the headline, and in one of the bullet points beneath the headline, and in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the article.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by C.

I don't know the specifics about San Francisco, but at the end of the day I'm guessing it was simply a corporate bottom-line decision that the stores where not generating enough profit and there are other stores nearby that would capture the market share. They're just using theft as a scapegoat. These were already pre-planned decisions, but so what?

That's exactly what it is. Walgreens has over 50 stores in San Francisco. We're talking about 5 stores being closed. They are not pulling out of SF, lol.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

And it's opinions and attitudes like this that play into and perpetuate that corporate narrative. People with these opinions seem to WANT to believe the corporations more than actual substantive facts.

…it’s also opinions like this, making California a social experiment, that makes the state so unlivable.

[edale]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Looting and shoplifting are not the same thing.

And ultimately, profit determines a store's closing, not acts of shoplifting by itself. When I was young, I knew someone who worked at a Crate & Barrel, and I was very surprised to learn that they got shoplifted more often than you'd think (even employees were stealing some of the merch)---but they didn't close that store. Goods get damaged too, and of course I'm sure you know shrinkage also includes damaged/defective inventory.

Prop 47 didn't eliminate punishment for crimes, it changed some non-violent offenses from being felonies to misdemeanors. I'm no criminal law expert, but I don't doubt that having multiple misdemeanors on your record wouldn't be a good thing for you, especially if you were trying to get a job or apply for a professional license.

I think some people are only choosing to connect some dots and not connecting ALL the dots. Wealth inequality in San Francisco is extremely high, and has gotten very high within the last 10-15 years. Is this alleged rise in theft in SF due solely to Prop 47, or hey, just maybe, it's also due to the rising wealth inequality? I've never been in that situation, (not yet, anyway), but I'm sure when people get desperate, they'll steal things like toothpaste or mouthwash, or shaving razors or shampoo.

Since shoplifting under $950 is just a misdemeanor, the police largely don't waste their time even trying to arrest these guys. They know they'll be let out in a matter of hours, and probably right back at it.

The shoplifting routinely taking place in SF is not desperate people stealing a stray tube of toothpaste. It's people walking into stores with duffle bags or trash bags, filling those bags with merch, and walking out of the store. It's more akin to looting than petty shoplifting.

Wealth inequality exists lots of places. This brazen theft only occurs where it's de facto permitted. The prosecutor and cops of SF have declared they aren't going to do anything to stop it (or car break-ins...another rampant problem in SF) so shoplifting continues at an alarming rate. If enough of this occurs, it obviously will affect the store's profitability.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Cory

…it’s also opinions like this, making California a social experiment, that makes the state so unlivable.

California has, by far, the largest population of any state in the country. That seems to contradict it being "unlivable".

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Cory

…it’s also opinions like this, making California a social experiment, that makes the state so unlivable.

It's so "unlivable" that far more people live there than any other state...

SF has to be the most absurdly caricatured city in the U.S. If you only followed alt-right media you'd think it were some mashup of the Warriors and Soylent Green.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Cory

…it’s also opinions like this, making California a social experiment, that makes the state so unlivable.

I dont understand these kinds of comments. How is California being made into a 'social experiment'?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

California has, by far, the largest population of any state in the country. That seems to contradict it being "unlivable".

It’s been more of a process in recent years. I’ve lived in the Bay Area for 12 years, half of that time being in San Francisco.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Crawford

SF has to be the most absurdly caricatured city in the U.S.

OMG Yes. I have met folks in other parts of the country who have simultaneously:
1. Never set foot in CA let alone SF.
2. Swear with every fiber of their being that SF is a demonic cesspool.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

OMG Yes. I have met folks in other parts of the country who have simultaneously:
1. Never set foot in CA let alone SF.
2. Swear with every fiber of their being that SF is a demonic cesspool.

we Chicagoans can sympathize.


i get this a lot when traveling or on zooms with strangers:

"you live IN chicago? like actually IN chicago!?!?!?!"

<in a more hushed tone> "what's it like?"



the mystified horror/morbid curiosity from many people is palpable.

[Chisouthside]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

we Chicagoans can sympathize.


i get this a lot when traveling or on zooms with strangers:

"you live IN chicago? like actually IN chicago!?!?!?!"

<in a more hushed tone> "what's it like?"



the mystified horror/morbid curiosity from many people is palpable.

As a chicagoan that lived in SF I would get those questions and then tell them that people in Indiana thought the same of their city.

[DCReid]

I recall that Walgreens opened huge, sometimes 2 story stores with expanded food sections and self-serve drinks, in downtown SF a few years ago. I was told that they opened a few in Chicago as well. I wonder if these huge stores are the ones that are the ones that are problematic and not profitable possibly due to the layout, lack of employees, and maybe Walgreens inexperience with that format.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It's so "unlivable" that far more people live there than any other state...

SF has to be the most absurdly caricatured city in the U.S. If you only followed alt-right media you'd think it were some mashup of the Warriors and Soylent Green.

Very true. I visit family in SF 4-5 times a year, and largely find the city to be extremely pleasant. While I don't think I'd like to live there, I find the city a wonderful place to visit, and generally really love the Bay Area.

That said, there are some quality of life issues there that should be addressed. Violent crime is low for major city standards, but the car break-ins, theft, public defecation/homeless issues are real problems there. Everyone I know who lives in SF has had their car broken into. Sometimes more than once, and in very safe neighborhoods. It's not the end of the world, but it sucks and the cops basically tell people there's nothing that can be done.

That doesn't mean the city's some giant cesspool or a 'failed experiment'. You seemingly can't have a normal conversation about the city-- it always devolves into something ridiculous.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by edale

Very true. I visit family in SF 4-5 times a year, and largely find the city to be extremely pleasant. While I don't think I'd like to live there, I find the city a wonderful place to visit, and generally really love the Bay Area.

That said, there are some quality of life issues there that should be addressed. Violent crime is low for major city standards, but the car break-ins, theft, public defecation/homeless issues are real problems there. Everyone I know who lives in SF has had their car broken into. Sometimes more than once, and in very safe neighborhoods. It's not the end of the world, but it sucks and the cops basically tell people there's nothing that can be done.

That doesn't mean the city's some giant cesspool or a 'failed experiment'. You seemingly can't have a normal conversation about the city-- it always devolves into something ridiculous.

Very well said. Also placing an ideology on every issue is exhausting and usually leaves issues that need solutions stagnant. People, a lot of times, come to California to be the total antithesis of where they come from and a lot of times are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

In the headline, and in one of the bullet points beneath the headline, and in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the article.

You're not reading logically. That phrasing doens't suggest a single reason.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by Cory

Very well said. Also placing an ideology on every issue is exhausting and usually leaves issues that need solutions stagnant. People, a lot of times, come to California to be the total antithesis of where they come from and a lot of times are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

They are usually coming from areas with a specific ideology which does not allow them to exist, or other things. CA is a state for refugees from other parts of America, and let's see some sources on the poop crisis. Homelessness, and crime are nothing new to large metro areas, and one way to stop thefts is to not leave valuable stuff in your car. OR set up a camera, identify the person, then go steal something of theirs that's under the prosecutable limit.

[EastSideHBG]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Not saying that shoplifting doesn't happen, but for a corporation to claim that THAT'S THE ONLY REASON for closing a store or a bunch of stores, is bullshit, IMO.

Shrinkage is taken into account in retail, and as was previously stated, is a tax write-off, for mom and pops as well as franchises and corporate chains.

It can be traumatizing for the employees and shoppers and has an awful ripple effect. If you want to try to break this argument down into just the dollars and cents the money you lose from shoppers not coming back because the store is a big crime draw will not be a tax write off.

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Looting and shoplifting are not the same thing.

And ultimately, profit determines a store's closing, not acts of shoplifting by itself. When I was young, I knew someone who worked at a Crate & Barrel, and I was very surprised to learn that they got shoplifted more often than you'd think (even employees were stealing some of the merch)---but they didn't close that store. Goods get damaged too, and of course I'm sure you know shrinkage also includes damaged/defective inventory.

Prop 47 didn't eliminate punishment for crimes, it changed some non-violent offenses from being felonies to misdemeanors. I'm no criminal law expert, but I don't doubt that having multiple misdemeanors on your record wouldn't be a good thing for you, especially if you were trying to get a job or apply for a professional license.

I think some people are only choosing to connect some dots and not connecting ALL the dots. Wealth inequality in San Francisco is extremely high, and has gotten very high within the last 10-15 years. Is this alleged rise in theft in SF due solely to Prop 47, or hey, just maybe, it's also due to the rising wealth inequality? I've never been in that situation, (not yet, anyway), but I'm sure when people get desperate, they'll steal things like toothpaste or mouthwash, or shaving razors or shampoo.

Retail theft that is organized and gang related and is the big grab type that can escalate quickly and get violent is becoming frequent.

And yes, shrinkage is built into your loss figures but A) no company would ever not want to reduce this B) employees' bonuses can be based on that figure (at least partially) so there's a lot of incentive to reduce this figure and/or close high loss stores.

Originally Posted by edale

Some people seem to applaud the erosion of basic societal norms. There's nothing 'bougie' about objecting to routine looting of drug stores. It's absurd that people are even defending it.

And the whole notion that no one is harmed by this theft because there's insurance or businesses budget for 'shrinkage' or whatever is just rationalizing this shitty behavior. Those costs are passed on to the other consumers, and theft absolutely plays a role in determining store closures. It's not the sole reason, but it's definitely a factor that the company considers when looking to close stores. If the store stays open, everything gets locked up and you have to call an employee over to unlock the case just so you can buy some toothpaste. Who wants to live like that? I guess if you're cool buying stolen goods in front of a BART station, that's a way around the hassle. Give me a break.

Prop 47 is a disaster and needs to be repealed.

Exactly.

[llamaorama]

Walgreens' business model is going to suffer as more people can get prescriptions delivered online. CVS seems to be doing more to also become some kind of clinic. This has been known for a while. Also I have a really hard time thinking of a single Walgreens location that I am familiar with that has any kind of location advantage over a larger grocery store. You don't see Walgreens in a neighborhood with a larger grocery store farther away, you just see a Walgreens across the street from the grocery store.

[JManc]

^ CVS bought an insurance company so they are leveraging that against declines sales due to competition with online pharmacies.

I bet the theft was a final trigger for Walgreen's to shutter these location as 10023. We are talking $900 per incident and these are largely done by organized rings and all this could effect their bottom line where people would starting going elsewhere to fill their Rx. Who wants to frequent a store that is robbed all the time? Walgreen's is going to cut their losses and close down.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Cory

It’s been more of a process in recent years. I’ve lived in the Bay Area for 12 years, half of that time being in San Francisco.

Yet it's 40 million people and the most expensive state. But ya know....